"Fake" sites for PR and Link Popularity Transfer- "hubs"?

anyone use these for SEO?

[notredamekid]

I noticed threads keep getting closed because they are asking about PageRank- maybe it is time the forum charter got altered a little. Let's be realistic, PageRank and soon, Web Rank, are the main reasons why link popularity matters in the SEO world (I realize direct targetted traffic is also a benefit of links).

But when I say PR I basically mean link popularity, because the Pagerank principle seems to be spreading to other major SE's as well.

I am wondering, how do people feel about making pages simply for the point of passing pagerank (or web rank)- does this work? Is it ethical?

I have several basically "fake" blogs and geocities websites as well as a domain or two that are PR5. I got these sites to PR 5 by getting easy backlinks- mainly from high PR (4-5) FFAs thats haven't yet been discovered by spammers and by a few reciprocal link exchanges. They are not crosslinked and they don't link to any spammy sites (although I realize their PR could get taken away if the FFAs that link to them get greybar'd, or get to Web Rank 0)

Whenever I make a new site, I basically use these sites to link to it with its keywords in the anchor text. The result is any new site is PR5 within 4-6 weeks, and after it PR5, it ranks higher, gets organic links, and I can remove the links from these "fake" sites and use them for another new site I am making.

Does anyone else do something like this? I view it as a short term solution to jump-start a site, but my SEO six months ago without these was much, much harder. Please advise. From what I understand these could be called "hubs"? Or am I using the term incorrectly?

[martinibuster]

>>>From what I understand these could be called "hubs"?

Feeder sites.

[Marcia]

>>I noticed threads keep getting closed because they are asking about PageRank- maybe it is time the forum charter got altered a little.

The Google forum charter is fine just as it is. ;) That's exactly where Google_specific posts are supposed to go - including and particularly those concerning Page Rank, which is a patented Google technology.

Says it here in this charter, too! See?

Link Development Charter [webmasterworld.com]

Questions about links as used by specific search engines for ranking purposes should be put in that search engine's forum.

>>But when I say PR I basically mean link popularity, because the Pagerank principle seems to be spreading to other major SE's as well.

The Page Rank principle, which is proprietary, cannot spread to other search engines and neither can it be emulated; it is proprietary to Google and protected as such by law.

In addition, calculation of PR and contributory factors and distribution and issues regarding link pop as sheer numbers and/or related to theming factors are two entirely different things.

>>Feeder sites.

Exactly, they feed the traffic to the pay sites and work very well in certain industries that utilize them abundantly. They're called "niched hubs" and many are set up with permanent links, with charted out link relationships among groups of sites to carefully direct and control the flow of the pay traffic, in addition to staying within safe parameters as far as cross-linking is concerned.